Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sorincosofret on 14/05/2008 08:16:11
-
BINARY STARS AND LIGHT SPEED
Background and actual explanation
Binary systems are important for special theory of relativity for at least two reasons: light constancy argument and absence of abnormal aberrations in case of moving source.
This indirect observation involving the propagation of light was first proposed in 1913 by DeSitter.
More than 50% of all the stars are considered as forming multiple star systems, some of them are near enough to be discerned with powerful telescopes.
De Sitter's basic idea was that if two stars are orbiting each other and we are observing them from the plane of their mutual orbit, the stars will be sometimes moving toward the Earth rapidly, and sometimes away. According to an emission theory this orbital component of velocity should be added to or subtracted from the speed of light. As a result, over long interval of time necessary to the light to reach the Earth, the arrival times of the light from approaching and receding sources would be very different.
When a source of light has a speed of u, say in the direction of the positive x axis - according to the ballistic theory the speed of the light emitted in the same direction is c + u, where c is the speed of light emitted by a resting source. Considering such system and an observer at a great distance D in the plane, light emitted by the star from points A becomes observed, in accordance with the theory of Ritz, after a time D/(c+u) and light emitted from B after the time D/(c-u).
He was giving in this paper (available in the internet) a example related to spectroscopic binaries and in this case some strange effect should appear (deviation from keplerian motion, multiple iamge, etc).
The existence of the spectroscopic binary stars and the circumstance, that in most cases the observed radial velocity completely becomes represented by the Keplerian motion is thus a strong proof for the constancy of the speed of light. If the speed light would be dependent by speed of source motion, in some cases appearance of stellar ghost and the distortion of the orbits of the double stars should be observed. Experimentally was observed that no double stars show any irregularities in their orbit patterns.
Proposed explanation
The internet represents a huge source of information, so for beginning, one latest news about binary systems worth to be presented: ,,Astronomers at the Mullard Space Science Laboratory (MSSL) together with a colleague in Finland have discovered a stellar binary system in which the two stars are orbiting around each other every 5 minutes. A separate group in Rome also made this discovery independently at the same time. This object sets the record as the fastest known binary and beats the previous record-holder by 5 minutes” .
For any experienced astronomer such period should give some problems of interpretations because it is quite impossible to have such real periods; this will mean a close distance between stars and a orbital speed greater then 10000 km/hour.
As curiosity, it is very strange how visually and close to Earth binary stars present periods of revolution in range of tenth of years and far away binary systems (spectroscopically or eclipsing ) presents lower period of revolution, generally periods of few days or even smaller. A simple statistical plot about the subject will reveal something strange. Probability of a star to have a smaller period is direct related to the distance to Earth.
The proposed model start takes into consideration the old idea of light speed variability dependent on the emission source speed.
In order to simplify the discussion, let’s consider a binary system where the central star is considered stationary relative to observer situated on Earth and the other components revolves on a circle like in fig 1. Supplementary let’s consider that photons are generated on both stars, due to the atomic processes, with the same ,,born” speeds c. The interaction of these photons with interplanetary medium during the trip up to observer is neglected.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 1. Binary star system
In the picture the distance from central star to observer is d and the distance between components of binary system is r.
The only information considered reliable in actual astronomy received from binary system, and on this information, the entire interpretation was build is related to the period of such binary system.
But represent the measured period of binary system reliable information?
In order to establish the period of binary system let’s consider a clock on the star P and at time t=0 the position of star is aligned relative to observer like in fig 2.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 2. Star P eclipse star S
A photon emitted from companion P during the eclipse in the direction of observer (detail case a) will never reach the observer. This is due to the classical composition of star speed and photon speed, and even the angle is small, the distance d being large ( at least decade of year light), the photon will follow another direction and will reach a point somewhere in front of the observer.
In order to be catch by the observer situated in O, the photon from companion P must be emitted under an angle greater then π/2 like in case b), and after the classical composition of speeds, the final direction must be parallel with SPO line. The angle of emission depends on the orbital velocity of star and can be calculated easily. But such photon will have a modified speed on trajectory (c’) and this speed is less then ,,born” speed (c).
The time necessary for the photon to arrive in point O will be:
t1'=PO/c'=[d-r]/c'
If the observer in the O considers that photon is traveling with speed c, a faulty appreciation of traveling time will be made.
After a half period, the companion arrives in opposite point of orbit and in this case S is eclipsing P.
From a corpuscular point of view, due to the composition of speeds, the eclipse is observed, not when a photon is emitted parallel with PSO direction – fig. 3 -case a), but when resultant speed is directed parallel with PS like in fig 2-case b).
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 3. Star S eclipse star P
Until here nothing special seems to appear. But what will be the time necessary for light to travel from P to O in this case?
For the interval PS (radius of orbit) it will be necessary a time equal with:
t'PS=PS/c'
But for the interval SO light will travel with speed c, due to the fact that S is stationary to the observer, so there is:
t'SO=SO/c
For the second eclipse, the transfer of information up to observer will be made with a modified and greater speed. The total time of arriving information at observer will be:
t'2=t'PS+t'SO=r/c'+r/d
In practice d >> r and consequently a nice effect appear. Because from the second eclipse the information travel faster then from the first eclipse a phenomena of time aberration appear. It is avoided to be used the term ,,time contraction” because there is not such effect. If a clock is going faster or is going slow it does not mean a time contraction or time dilation, it’s only a clock problem. Here there is the same problem, the clock is going irregularly, relative to our expectations. I highlight this aspect, because only the transfer of information up to observer is affected.
If we suppose that real period of companion star is TP, the observer will measure a smaller period TO than the real one. The difference between the real period TP and measured one TP, is related to the distance and speeds of binary star components and also with the distance from observer to the binary system. Therefore, there will be a small percent of visually binary system with period of hours or minutes, but there will be an appreciable percent of spectroscopic or eclipse binaries with such small periods.
According to proposed model, the real period of revolution of stars in binary system must be, generally, on the order of decades and only in special cases can be on the order of terrestrial years. The measured period from an observer situated at high distance is an abberated period and is affected by the speed of transfer on information and does not correspond with real one. All measured periods of binary stars must be corrected in order to obtain the true period of motion.
In real cases there are another two interference factors affecting this time aberration, namely, movement of primary star and interstellar matter.
The judgment made by de Sitter is right in principle, but the period of motion used in calculation is not correct. If in his original example instead of a period of 8 days a period of years or decade is taken into consideration of course there will be no double image or another effect.
This does not mean the observed trajectory of visually binary stars correspond with the real one. Of course it is vague idea to speak about trajectory in case of binary stars. With the must performing telescopes a binary star is seen under an angle of few arc seconds and it is good if the components are separable in visual field. In the same time there is no possibility to observe a star in points indicated by de Sitter calculus, more precisely when a photons emitted by revolving star has maximum or minimum speed relative to Earth.
-
When a source of light has a speed of u, say in the direction of the positive x axis - according to the ballistic theory the speed of the light emitted in the same direction is c + u, where c is the speed of light emitted by a resting source.
I would a lot of convincing that this is true.
There is quite a lot of evidence that Special Relativity got it right and that c is a constant and quite independent of the speed of the source. The light from both stars will be coming towards Earth at the same speed; what will have changed, however, is the frequency of the light which will be higher for the one moving towards us and lower for the one moving away from us - the well known Doppler effect.
How can you justify your ideas in the face of the accepted consistency of the speed of light?
-
Dear Sophie,
On the internet there are available a lot of texts related to relativity. I remind only few of them:
Ampere modified experiment
Maxwell equations asymmetry
Binary systems and light speed variability
Michelson-Morley experiment and light speed inconstancy
The lifts experiment and equivalence principle
Trouton-Noble experiment and relativity
Earth sattelite movement
Other lift experiments and equivalence principle
Time dilation and light clock
You must search only ....
These texts were already submitted to some high Impact factor journals. The answers are astonishing:
The astronomy journals refuted to publish the idea of binary system because contradict the experiment of Michelson and Morley.
The optic journals refuted to publish the Michelson Morley experiment because the experiment is to old and they can't publish a new interpretation.
All are deny publication only becasue the papers are in contradiction with ,,ortodox'' interpretation, and not because the models presented are wrong.
There are physicians (one of them is a prof. at Oxford) who are incapable to make a simple 10 euro experiment (a battery, a cup of salt water, and a light bulb) in order to decide if the definition of electric current is correct.
So, for me the actual perspective is to change the physics starting from discussion lists and through my site.
-
Oh, so it's all a huge conspiracy, is it?
You seem to be suggesting that satellite measurements refute the constancy of c. I use a GPS receiver frequently and it operates on 'conventional and established' principles. It manages to be extremely accurate and reliable. I feel that, if your new theory were correct, I could be finding myself sailing in the middle of the land sometimes.
I will not bother to search these topics because most hits will support what I know and love. I will try to read any reasonable links which support your ideas and which you care to post here.
-
Dear Sophie,
I'm not able to insinuate a conspiracy.
In the absence of a Ferrari I drive a VW. In the same way scientific community in absence of something better accepted what seems more appropriate.
There are some proposed experiments which make difference between electromagnetic waves and light at http://www.elkadot.com/corpuscular.html
Consequently your GPS working in microwave is out of present field of discussion.
Still, there are some materials for adding on site and after that, I will try to post some of experiments here. It's up to you (as scientists) how much time spend for searching new informations and compare what you find with what you know.
For a scientist, curiosity is a very good quality...
-
"There are some proposed experiments which make difference between electromagnetic waves and light at http://www.elkadot.com/corpuscular.html "
No, there are not. There's a page that is essentially an advert for a book (which I presume you wrote). It details no experiments at all. On the other hand the text confirms that light is part of the em spectrum. "First electric and magnetic phenomena were unified in Maxwell equations, which suppose to give a complete description of electromagnetism. Immediately the light was unified with electromagnetism and actually light represents a portion of this spectrum."
-
For a scientist, curiosity is a very good quality...
and skepticism is an even better one.
You will need some serious and heaviweight theory, maths and experimental evidence to convince me. For a start you will need to sound like you know what you are talking about by being consistent. Microwaves are just as much part of the electromagnetic spectrum as the rest of it. If your theory ignores them, conveniently and in error, I can't even start to take it seriously.
-
Dear bored chemist,
I don't think you are so bored and didn't see the links from the right side of the page.
There are next links on the page:
Electric currents and electromagnetic waves
Electric currents modulation techniques and quanta hypothesis
Nuclear magnetic resonance and quantum hypothesis
Quantum Hypothesis and electromagnetic waves
Quantum hypothesis and cosmic body temperature
Quantum hypothesis and Ives Stilwell experiment
Quasar spectra and quantum hypothesis
Thermodynamic and quantum hypothesis
Photoluminescence and quantum hypothesis
Raman Effect and quantum hypothesis
Light and electromagnetic wave pressure
Angular momentum for light and electromagnetic waves
Lasers and quantum hypothesis
Masers and quantum hypothesis
Does masers and lasers work after the same principle?
Last three links are still inactive, but there are enough which deal with quantum idea and implication in different fields of physics.
You extracted only a sentence from a overview, without taking the whole idea, so its not necessary to comment more...
-
Dear Sophie,
It is really true that it's quite impossible to convince someone 100% that a new model of binary star can change the general perspective about light. But, a new (alternative ) theory with new predictions for electricity and optics is coming...
So, please look a little bit at folowing experiments:
http://www.elkadot.com/corpuscular/Angular%20momentum%20for%20light%20and%20electromagnetic%20waves.htm
http://www.elkadot.com/corpuscular/Light%20and%20electromagnetic%20wave%20pressure.htm
When I will have time, I will post them here in order to receive comments.
I thank you for the comments on the other forums, I will not answer you there, in order to be polite and to leave you the last word.
-
Do you mean that I have left you speechless?
Or is it that you don't have any real answers?
-
It is normal to answer when there are discusion about the topic posted.
To discuss only to loose the time is not convenient for me. Consequently please try to point the question or the problem of the topic.
-
Whenever I hear people talk about the possibility of the speed of light not being a universal constant, everybody always says that GPS data proves that relativity is correct. However, if we assume that the speed of light is not constant, but changes by a factor of say (1-v2/c2) then it would be my guess that we would come up with the same kind of "relativistic" changes that are supposedly attributed to length contraction or time dilation. Am I not correct? Similarly, if we dust off the Georges Sagnac experiments and not assume relativity is correct, we can prove that light is dependent on the speed of the source. Whenever I see disproofs of the Sagnac effect, they all assume that "c" is constant. I say assume that "c" is not constant and see what you get.